Appeal No. 1999-1345 Page 4
Application No. 08/482,556
Metlitsky et al. (Metlitsky) 5,151,580 Sep.
29, 1992
(filed Aug. 3, 1990)
Hebert et al. (Hebert) 4,000,397 Dec. 28,
1976 .
Claims 33-36 and 40-43 stand rejected under “the judicially
created doctrine of double patenting,” (Examiner’s Answer at
4), as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of Metlitsky.
Claims 33, 34, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hebert. Rather than
reiterate the arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto,
we refer the reader to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejections of the examiner. Furthermore, we
duly considered the arguments and evidence of the appellants
and examiner. After considering the record, we are persuaded
that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 33-36 and 40-43 as
being unpatentable over the claims 1-30 of Metlitsky. We are
also persuaded that she did not err, however, in rejecting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007